Getting Auckland’s local governance right is a hugely important task. While there are a diversity of views on changes to the one model, most people are taking the task seriously.

Then we have the idiots. Inspired by the scare mongering of Phil Twyford’s bill about Auckland assets (I note Labour only wants the public consulted over selling assets – not over buying or producing them), they have listed several Auckland assets for sale such as the Harbour Bridge (noT even owned locally), libraries (what moron thinks anyone would sell or buy a library), a building owned by DOC and a stadium owned by a trust.

So not only are they trying to whip up hysteria over a non-existent issue, they can’t even get the most basic facts right.

Meanwhile the adults are actually trying to grapple with the serious issues.

Labour and its allies keep talking about the issues they think are important, rather than those people are actually concerned about. But hey long may they campaign on free silk scarf dying courses, welfare for millionaires, and stopping Auckland local bodies from selling assets they don’t actually own.

Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

12 Responses to “Idiots”

“But hey long may they campaign on free silk scarf dying courses”
Interesting to read this on red alert: http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/07/28/real-anger-at-ace-cuts/
“Maryan Street demolished the two hapless Nats. She pointed out that the cuts total just $13m a year, affecting 220,000 New Zealanders”
So they’re complaining about $60/person. I think that really shows how much value these people are placing on ACE. If they don’t think their own courses are worth another $60 each then why would they think other people (tax-payers) would?

You’d think that selling an asset somehow translated into giving it and ending up with nothing.

News flash: if the asset is worth anything, you get these things called “dollars” which translate to the value of the asset. Therefore the sale of an asset like a building leaves the buyer with the building and the seller with the money. Neither are worse off.

The easy way for National to deal with this issue is to agree to pass Twyford’s bill. If there is no intent to allow privatisation then no harm will be done in allowing the public to vote before any such privatisation happens. The Government have some really whacky ideas about not allowing increases over the CPI without a referendum, why not extend this to privatisations?

And DPF the photos are obviously symbolic and show things that should always remain in public ownership.

You misrepresent current projects. The intention is to provide free retraining for the unemployed, welfare for those who need it, and stopping Auckland local bodies from selling assets they they do own or control.

[DPF: You miss the point. If local bodies are to banned from selling or disposing of assets without a referendum, they should be banned from purchasing them also. If Twyford really thought there was a danger of this occurring, he would agree to legislate for referenda in both situations. But it is jut scare mongering – and bloody silly one at that]

“You’d think that selling an asset somehow translated into giving it and ending up with nothing. ”

Some of the asset sales historically have pretty much resulted in this with them being sold at a rate significantly below their value at times to the very same consultants who recommended the sale. Besides the asset is already funded, what is the need to sell it. Get private investment in sure, but make sure it is investment in new assets, not buying up proven assets at a discounted rate due to some idiological point of view.

Mickysavage, why pass any law of Phil Twyford’s? The government may not intend for any disposal of council assets, but surely the new council should not have another central government legislative burden placed on it?

The photos that I saw were not symbolic of anything except the ignorance of the obviously hysterical fools running the campaign.

Jeff83: you miss an obvious reason why the council may seek to sell an asset – it genuinely doesn’t need to participate in that activity or need that asset anymore. For example, councils used to run abbatoirs, but I’m sure you agree they don’t need to run abbatoirs any more. Another good example: there may be land for roads which any council might buy with an intent to do something, and then future councils decide not to proceed. They ought to dispose of the asset accordingly.

Sushi I agree with your two examples, but in those two cases the “asset” has become redundent and isnt providing a benefit to the rate payers.

However my concern lies at the heart of the abbatoir example when you apply it to another asset, say the port without taking into account the unique characteristics of the port. The port has a monopoly on shipping into Auckland, with the closest rival deep water port being Tauranga. Accordingly selling the Port to a private company I wouldnt see as been in the benefits of Auckland, and wouldnt supply new investment. Conversly if X wanted to develop a deep water port at a place close to Auckland, that would be investment and so supported.

Further if the above happened, with the advent of competition into Auckland the council wouldnt need to own the Port as no Monopoly would exist.

@jeff83 I think you are confusing issues of ownership with monopoly regulation. There is no particular evidence that “government owned” corporate monopolies would behave differently in an unregulated market than corporate monopolies owned by private investors (they’d just do it less efficiently).

“@jeff83 I think you are confusing issues of ownership with monopoly regulation. There is no particular evidence that “government owned” corporate monopolies would behave differently in an unregulated market than corporate monopolies owned by private investors (they’d just do it less efficiently).”

Except the benefits of the “government owned” monopoly goes towards the people who are negatively affected by that monopolies existance, as opposed to a privately owned one.

Re less efficiently, in regards of a monopoly that is actually a contensiious issue if you remove legislation from the mix. Monopolies will operate in their own self interest to maximise long term returns, which is generally not in the interest of the people in general or the state (insert Telecom) and therefore arguably not the most efficient income. For capitalism to work there needs to be competition.